MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are two too many when it comes to the treatment of anal canal cancer with concurrent radiation and mitomycin C?

2022· article· en· W4206516249 on OpenAlexaff
Zainab Al Habsi, Aswin Abraham, Mustafa Al Balushi, Gabriella Tankel, Karen Mulder, Heather Warkentin, Dan Schiller, Keith Tankel, Nawaid Usmani, Diane Severin, Kim Paulson, Hatim Karachiwala, Clarence Wong, Tirath Nijjar, Kurian Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnal cancerCancerSurgeryPopulationMitomycin CStage (stratigraphy)Radiation therapyCancer registryProportional hazards modelInternal medicineFluorouracilGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3 Background: Concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with 2 doses of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and mitomycin C (MMC) is the standard of care for anal canal cancer (ACC) in North America while 1 dose of MMC is an acceptable practice. Given the lack of randomized data of 1 vs 2 doses of MMC on disease outcomes, we have conducted a population-based study to elucidate the impact of 1 vs. 2 doses of MMC on patterns of treatment failure (POF) and outcomes in ACC treatment. Zainab Al Habsi, Aswin Abraham, Mustafa Al Balushi, Gabriella Tankel, Karen Mulder, Heather Warkentin, Dan Schiller, Keith Tankel, Nawaid Usmani, Diane Severin, Kim Paulson, Hatim Karachiwala, Clarence Wong, Tirath Nijjar, Kurian Joseph. Methods: Data was collected from the provincial cancer registry of patients with stage I-III ACC who were treated with concurrent CRT from 2000 to 2018. Recurrence free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and ACC specific survival were calculated. Results: 428 patients with a median age of 58 years (29-88 years) were included in this analysis. 234 (54.7%) patients received 1 dose of MMC and 194 (45.3%) received 2 doses of MMC. At a median follow-up of 78.5 months (5-252 months), 89 (20.8%) patients developed disease recurrence: 44 (10.3%) loco-regionally, 39 (9.1%) distally and 6 (1.4%) had both local and distant recurrences. Cox Regression analysis showed that the dosage of MMC did not have an impact on overall recurrence (HR = 0.883, p = 0.561), whereas stage III was associated with increased risk for recurrence (HR = 5.238, p = 0.021). Subgroup analysis showed an association of stage IIIb and IIIc with recurrence (HR = 13.33, p = 0.008 and HR = 6.933, p = 0.011 respectively), but was not impacted by the use of 1 vs. 2 doses of MMC. The dosage of MMC did not show any association with local recurrence (HR = 1.136, p = 0.655) or distant recurrence (HR = 0.743, p = 0.267). However, in Stage IIIc patients, 2 doses of MMC showed a trend towards improved distant RFS (HR = 0.626,p = 0.084). Conclusions: Our analysis showed that the patterns of failure and the risk of loco-regional and distant failures were similar between patients who received 1 vs. 2 doses of MMC for stage groups I to IIIc. These finding support routine use of single dose of MMC along with 5FU and radiotherapy for definite chemoradiation. However, a trend towards better RFS was demonstrated with a second dose of MMC in patients with stage IIIc disease.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal and Anal CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207